You are not logged in.
Bobbym, invite, please in this subject more influential mathematicians. I will show new which in the future will replace CALCULUS!
I want not to write still any time, that at opponents had questions on links.
Hi, bobbym!
insert please these links:
h ttp://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/11/11.jpg
h ttp://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/11/12.jpg
Hi, bobbym!
insert please these links:
h ttp://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/11/1.jpg
h ttp://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/11/2.jpg
It is necessary to consider five cases:
1. x-variable,a=const,b=const;
2. x-variable,a-variable,b=const;
3. x-variable,a=const,b - variable;
4. x-variable,a-variable,b-variable;
5. The definite integral,interval (x_1,x_2 ).
Thanks.
I suggest to consider the bottom drawing. This drawing - result of the actual experience on which we will check the validity of theoretical conclusions of CALCULUS. It is communication ALGEBRA and CALCULUS. The day after tomorrow I will lay out errors of CALCULUS in my POST. I want, that 2 days all wishing could analyse drawings to try to find errors of CALCULUS.
(7) - formula of a secant.
on the drawing function schedule
Hi;
Give me the links or are they on your hard drive?
h ttp://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/11/alg.jpg
h ttp://vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/11/screenshot-21.11.jpg
For some reason it is impossible to place with me here drawings. Automat writes that works anti-spam. I have no possibility to place drawings?
Well, close this subject. I should open new and to give in it a material which I for the present didn't want to give. But it is necessary. Probably you will prompt me one more of sites in U.S.A. in where I too can place the new message.
Hi;
That I can not do. I have no authority there. You can publish on the net in the free archives.
Clearly. I do that while is available to me. Your site is in Great Britain. In London there lives the Russian mathematician and the businessman [removed by administrator]. You don't know as I can begin with it correspondence?
Here in Russia nobody wants to work for us. All only steal and launder money. In a science all take bribes there a little that who really is interested in a science. They only help to receive scientific ranks for money. I have here a terrible country.
Hey that is a forum I did not know about. That is still not authoritative proof. Unfortunately you have to submit your ideas to a recognized journal for peer review for the mathematical community to listen.
I don't know as it to make. If you prompt, I will be grateful to you. But I have no sponsors.
Using the partial derivative operator is used for derivatives of functions of arity 2 and more. I do not see 2 let alone more than 2 parameters in those functions...
Now, after correction, the robot translated correctly!
The matter is that when you received a private derivative, any more don't know parameters were or function of two and more arguments. It isn't known and is designated by a letter "C". It after all unique formula of a general view!
I can write so:
"C" - it is the general image of all expressions which are not depending from "x", including parameters. Therefore I also suggest to enter two formulas of integrals.
Hi;
Study a partial derivative.
That is not quite enough.
Rene Thom wrote:In a sense a proof is bringing yourself down to the level of the other people. You must convince your colleagues that you are right.
Since you are disagreeing with the entire mathematical community both present and past, the onus is on you to provide solid evidence to convince everyone else. You will have to point out where anonimnystefy is going wrong.
Here
(...://www.nkj.ru/forum/forum25/topic17952/messages/)
discussion of this subject at Russian forum of the scientific host of the magazine.
Hi. I do not understand sense which translates me the robot:
"sing the partial derivative operator is used for derivatives of functions of arity 2 and more. I do not see 2 let alone more than 2 paraneters in those functions...". What is it: "... arity 2 and more...2 let alone more than 2 paraneters in those functions"?
Study a partial derivative.
In the last line of the proof I show that for equality preservation in an integration formula in parts, function with an integration constant can be antiderivative only. Antiderivative without an integration constant (i.e. with a constant equal to zero), breaks equality of the right and left part of a formula. ANTIDERIVATIVE WITHOUT the CONSTANT of INTEGRATION
ANTIDERIVATIVES DOES NOT BELONG to FAMILY. WHICH PRIVATE DERIVATIVE is EQUAL STOUT DERIVATIVE ANTIDERIVATIVE WITHOUT the INTEGRATION CONSTANT!
It is the main thought! ONE, though the "uncertain" integral can't be used for receivingantiderivative from private and from a full derivative. TWO integrals are necessary. All of you time want to enter an integration constant. CORRECTLY! It confirms that function with a constant of integration equal to zero isn't the solution of uncertain integral!
Because:
But:
To BOB BUNDBY: You don't understand that about what I want to tell
Look:
This formula is true for antiderivatives for example:
agrees CALCULUS.
I argue that from these all formulas one which doesn't approach under the general rule is allocated:
You understand?
Yes, but, for what reason is C=0?
Read start-post.
I don't understand what you want. In the starting message it is shown that is used antiderivative with a constant equal to zero. C=0, D=0, E=0...Z=0, A=0, B=0. You understand?!
You don't understand that such a constant. This concept not absolute, but relative. Look in this drawing
and - in one case of a constant, as values of the variable , in other case - variable arguments of their sum.//vladimir938.eto-ya.com/files/2012/11/screenshot-19.11.jpg
"a" in relation to the variable "x" - is a constant, but in relation to the "D" - is a variable !
For example:
. "t" - in relation to the "x" - is a constant, but "t" - in relation to the "D" - is a variable !ONE OF MANY ERRORS IN CALCULUS.
In the calculus there are mistakes in establishment of rules and general view's formulas because some special cases were given sense of the general view. For example:
The formula
2.
. For integration of a full derivative it is necessary to use integral with indefinite borders of integration .3.
- incorrectly, - true.Proof: WE INVESTIGATE FUNCTION, WITH THE CONSTANT OF INTEGRATION EQUAL TO ZERO, FOR THIS PURPOSE, TO PROVE ITS SEPARATE CASE OF ANTIDERIVATIVE NOT ENTERING INTO FAMILY WITH NONZERO CONTANTS OF INTEGRATION !
Integral application
for a case of (1)ATTENTION !
according a statement of the problem!P.S. It is translated by means of the robot
Closed
Excuse I write by means of the automatic translator